§ Mr. LUNDONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that at a general court-martial held at the Victoria Barracks, Cork, on the 25th and 26th January last, upon Peter O'Keeffe for an offence under the Defence of the Realm Act, counsel for the accused had several times complained of the attitude and demeanour of Captain Atkinson, the judge advocate; whether the judge advocate had used several expressions of an insulting character towards the accused's counsel, a gentleman of experience at the Irish Bar; whether the judge advocate illegally objected to accused's counsel cross-examining the principal witness for the prosecution as to his character and as to convictions against him on the ground that accused's solicitor had not served notice to produce the witness's record; whether accused's counsel appealed to the members of the court-martial to express an opinion upon the conduct of Captain Atkinson; whether one member of the Court stated that he considered the judge advocate had not treated counsel fairly; whether another member stated that sufficient latitude was not being accorded by the judge advocate to the counsel for the defence; whether these views were adopted by other members of the Court; whether 55W the General Officer Commanding the Forces in Ireland has received a complaint in reference to the matter; and whether, in view of the Rules of Procedure, Nos. 60, 89, 91, and 102 (H), which provide that proper latitude is to be allowed to accused and his counsel, and that the judge advocate should maintain an entirely impartial position, the sentence upon Peter O'Keeffe will be quashed?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONNo such expressions of opinion by individual members of the Court with regard to the judge advocate as are suggested by my hon. Friend appear on the face of the record. In one place the president states with regard to a question that had arisen that the majority of the Court were entirely in favour of the judge advocate. Counsel for the defence also stated that he had every latitude, courtesy and fair play from the members of the Court. Some altercation appears to have arisen between the judge advocate and counsel for the defence, but it does not appear on the record that the judge advocate used insulting expressions towards the accused's counsel, or that he prevented the cross-examination of the principal witness for the prosecution as to his character. The first witness for the prosecution appears, in fact, to have been fully cross-examined as to character. Reports are being obtained from the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Ireland, and the president of the Court to enable me to deal with the remaining points raised by my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will specify the charges upon which Mr. John MacNeill was arrested, accused, and convicted, respectively, in Dublin last May?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI would refer the hon. Member to the oral reply given today by my light hon. Friend in answer to a question by the hon. Member for East Mayo.
Mr. GINNELasked what was the name of the British officer who appeared as a witness against Dermod (Jeremiah) Lynch, an American citizen, before a secret court-martial in Dublin last May; what is this officer's present rank; and where is he now-serving?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI would refer the hon. Member to the oral reply given to-day56W by my right hon. Friend in answer to a question by the hon. Member for East Mayo.